1 2025:CGHC:4037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 629 of 2025 Purshottam Dewangan S/o Radhelal Dewangan Aged About 21 Years R/o Jayanti Nagar, Near Karma Bhawan Durg, P.S. Mohan Nagar, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Rang Cyber Thana Raipur Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. Chandel. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22.01.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 11/2024 registered at Police Station Rang Cyber Thana Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution's story is that complainant Mayur Lakhtariya filed a written complaint at Rang Cyber Police Station, Raipur, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.23 17:47:53 +0530 2 Chhattisgarh. He claimed to have invested Rs. 12,50,000/- through online trading in three WhatsApp groups and a D-Mat account of authorized sub-broker Angle and Stome broker. The amounts were transferred to different account numbers. Lakhtariya stated that out of Rs. 12,50,000/-, Rs. 5,93,039/- was refunded, but the balance Rs. 6,56,961/- was not. He alleged that he was cheated. Based on his complaint, the police registered the crime. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that as per prosecution itself the alleged amount has not been deposited in the account of applicant, nor he has given any allurement to the complainant to invest the money. The only allegation against the present applicant that he has sold mobile sim to one Sunil Pandey and Avinash Kumar, therefore, it is prima facie seen that the applicant is not involved in the alleged crime. He also submits that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the IPC which has already been compromised. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 01.10.2024, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge - sheet has already been submitted before competent Court in the present matter. He submits that the present applicant is involved in online fraud, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case 3 diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the present applicant has 01 criminal antecedent under the IPC which has already been compromised. Moreover, the charge - sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and he is in jail since 01.10.2024 and the conclusion of the trial may takes some more time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the Applicant – Purshottam Dewangan, involved in Crime No. 11/2024 registered at Police Station Rang Cyber Thana Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek